IN RE: Makayla B.

ResetAA Font size: Print

Superior Court of Connecticut.

IN RE: Makayla B.

W10CP08015586A

-- August 23, 2010

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On December 8, 2009, the petitioner, the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), filed a petition pursuant to C.G.S. § 17a-112, et seq. to terminate the parental rights of Brandy B., and Raymond P. B., the unmarried parents of the minor child, Makayla (dob 4/3/08).   The mother and father have appeared and are represented by counsel.   The parents were present for this contested proceeding.   Neither parent claims Indian Tribal affiliation.   The court is aware of no other proceedings pending in any other court regarding the custody of these children.   This court has jurisdiction.

The court received fourteen documents and heard from six witnesses over the course of this two-day trial including the respondent mother who testified.   The male biological parent, Raymond, did not testify.   The court had a close view of the parents and had the opportunity to assess their appearance, hygiene, mannerisms, demeanor and the mother's credibility.   The court took judicial notice of two prior court decisions In re Dale C. (Quinn, J.) and In re Brandy H-B. (Foley, J.).   The representations contained in the social studies as to historic and sociological information was not contradicted in any of the testimony and is accepted as accurate by the court.   The court makes the following findings by clear and convincing evidence.   An examination of this case begins with some background.   Both parents come from catastrophically dysfunctional backgrounds and, as can be expected, neither had appropriate role models for proper parenting.   Both were exposed to physical abuse, neglect and sexual abuse as young children.  (Petitioner's Exhibit A.) Brandy was removed from her mother's care by DCF for physical abuse and neglect at age four.   Her mother consented to the termination of her parental rights.   Brandy lived with her paternal grandmother from the time she was six until she was nearly fourteen (1994-2003).   She says her childhood with the grandmother was horrible featuring physical abuse of her and her brother.   She reports having to kneel on Lego Blocks for hours and being hit with a two by four on the back.   She told the court appointed psychologist that she was raped at least ten times by a “step-grandfather” when she was ten and eleven.  “He'd try and give me money to get me to do stuff.”  (Exhibit F. P.5.) She was removed from that home by DCF after Brandy was hospitalized for suicidal ideation.

She attended numerous schools in Putnam, Thompson and Farmington, Connecticut and in East Douglas, Massachusetts.   She reportedly dropped out in the eleventh grade.   Ironically, Brandy reports positive experiences while being in DCF foster care subsequent to the time she lived with her grandmother.2  She reports to receiving mental health treatment during childhood.   She was taking Zoloft for depression as a teenager.

She is presently twenty-two years of age.   In the past five years, since she was seventeen, she has worked for less than one year of those five years:  three months at Duncan Donuts and a few months at Stop & Shop when she was seventeen.   Her only other job in the past four years was at Target, a retail store where she worked for six months until she quit.   She appears healthy and otherwise able to work.   Her only brother died last year from a drug-related heart attack at age twenty-one.   She has not been able to maintain stable residence at any time during her five or six years of independent living.   She lives off of friends and relatives and state assistance in the form of homeless shelters and domestic violence shelters when she needs them.   As indicated earlier, she has worked only six months in the last four years.   She has not demonstrated an ability to provide adequate shelter and employment for herself.

The situation for Raymond, the father of Makayla, is at least as bad, if not worse.   His family is well known to DCF and the court system.   Raymond's father was domestically violent and abused drugs.   Raymond's grandfather sexually abused him at age three and took pornographic pictures of him.   The grandfather was subsequently convicted and incarcerated.   Raymond spent much of his youth in and out of foster care including residential treatment at St. Francis Hospital when he was twelve years old (1999) to address mental health and behavioral issues.

Twenty-three-year-old Raymond has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.   He was a special education student.   He did not have many friends.   He has been employed at entry level jobs including warehouses, lumber yards and factory work.   He has also admitted to selling drugs in 2009.   He has at least three known allegations of sexually deviant behavior.   He has a recent conviction for risk of injury to a minor involving contact with the intimate parts of a four-year-old female in violation of § 53-21(a)(2).   On February 5, 2010, he was sentenced to seven years in jail suspended after time served, with three years probation.   He is to register as a sexual offender for ten years.  (Exhibit G.) His photo for sex offender registration and description of his many colorful tattoos is set forth in Exhibit K.

It is not surprising that Raymond has difficulty maintaining employment and stable residence.   He comes from a profoundly dysfunctional family.   His mother Kelly B., has had eight children.   Raymond is the oldest and the only one of her children who has not been removed from her care.   The court has had three cases in which seven of her children have had the parental rights terminated.   Some knowledge of that history is useful to know in this case since it reflects on Raymond's early life, but more importantly, it is with his mother and her boyfriend, that Brandy B. and Raymond now live.   It is into this home that these parents have frequently sought shelter and presumably would bring Makayla if reunited.

In the recent case of In re Brandy H B. (May 21, 2009, Foley, J.) 3 This court noted “[T]his mother, Kelly, has had the longest and most checkered child protection history ever seen by this court.   Her DCF history goes back to 1988.   She has had eight children by four different men.   None of the children are presently in her care.   She has had thirty-five referrals to DCF for neglect.   Four of the children have had their parental rights terminated by contested court action.   Two other children were terminated by consent.”   This court, following an earlier contested neglect proceeding made the following findings of fact concerning the home in which Raymond was raised and into which he and Brandy now reside.

The court heard from DCF social workers Andrew Rondeau and Betty Thompson, United Services social worker Theresa Kennedy, probation officer Bethany Stone and a State Police officer.   In response, the respondent Kelly B. testified and her present or recently estranged boy friend Allan E. testified.   Numerous documents including social studies, affidavits and restraining orders were presented as evidence.   Based upon the documentary and testimonial evidence presented the court makes the following findings.

Kelly B. is presently thirty seven years of age.   She has had eight children by, at least, four different fathers.   Four of the children have been removed from her care and the parental rights to those children were terminated on February 1, 2000.   The mother has been involved with DCF since November of 1988 due to ongoing issues of inadequate shelter, inadequate supervision, the children's exposure to substance abuse, domestic violence, known sexual offenders and deplorable living conditions.   Following the termination of parental rights of four of her older children, Kelly met Mark H. and together they had three more children, the subjects of this petition.

Kelly's rights to her oldest son, Raymond, have not been terminated.   Raymond, who is now 19 years of age, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a young girl and never successfully completed sex offender treatment.   DCF describes Raymond as having a history of sexually deviant behavior, and as a sexualized teenager with anger issues.4  While DCF required the mother to get a restraining order to keep Raymond away from these three young girls, Brandy, Gladys and Lori, mother allowed the order to lapse and has not renewed the order.   Mother presently allows Raymond access to her home and to contact with the young half-sisters.   As recently as July 22, 2006 the police were summoned to mother's home due to a fight between Raymond and mother's current boyfriend, Brian T. As a result of this engagement Brian T. suffered a broken nose.

Based upon her handwriting on the affidavit for a restraining order and her testimony in court, the court finds that Kelly is marginally literate.   She is extremely occupied with obtaining sexual gratification.   A social worker testified to that effect, stating in very graphic terms, in the vernacular, her desire for, euphemistically stated, sexual intimacy.   This testimony is very consistent with the long-term and on-going concerns of DCF regarding her relational conflicts with numerous undesirable men.   A recent report to DCF relates to Kelly presently having three different men “rotating them” through the house for her own gratification.   All three men, her former husband, her present boyfriend and Allan have substance abuse and/or mental health issues.   One of these men, Brian T. who was in the fight with her son Raymond, is alleged to presently use cocaine.

Of more serious consequence is Kelly's relationship with Allan E. The mother has been involved with Allan since September of 2005.   He was living in the home with Kelly and the children at least through July and probably until a few weeks ago.   He spent the night there as recently as August 22, 2006.   Allan himself has an active DCF file regarding his two children, ages 11 and 12, who are in DCF custody.   Allan was arrested three times last year for violating a protective order in favor of his former wife.   He is currently on probation for two years for “domestic violence.”  (Respondent's Exhibit 6.) He is also in therapy regarding his own mental health issues.   In his testimony he indicated that he is presently medicated with seroquel, trazadone and lithium.5  Allan appeared on the stand as a very unstable person.

On August 23, 2006, Allan told his addiction/recovery therapist at United Services that he was having auditory command hallucinations that told him to kill a woman.   He later told the therapist that the woman he would kill was Kelly B. He further told the therapist that he did not feel stable and needed hospitalization.   Before the therapist could obtain services, Allan fled the office.   The police were notified and the police contacted Kelly.   Her response to the threats upon her life by the mentally unstable Allan was that he would not harm her and that she could handle him.6

A probation officer testified that she had seen a known convicted sex offender, Dwight G. living in the home of Kelly and the girls.   Her son is a sex offender.   Even, Allan, who thinks she is “a good mom” reported that she has men going in and out of her house.   She is exposing her young daughters to a parade of unstable, criminal, and sexually deviant men.   She minimizes the threats posed by these men and is totally unaware of how her serial relationships and behavior might adversely affect her daughters and their ability to ever form meaningful interpersonal relationships.   Kelly has very substantial, unmet, personal needs.   She exalts her physical and emotional needs over the children's needs for safety and security.   The children's attorney said “She just doesn't get it.”

The court notes that the mere removal of the known criminals and unbalanced men from Kelly's life for the moment, should not provide a basis for return of the children.   Kelly must engage in long term therapy to appreciate and rectify her own inadequacies as a parent.   Further, she must demonstrate over time that she has benefitted from the therapy.   Regrettably for her, given her history of poor parenting, she will not have a lot of time to demonstrate her rehabilitation.  (From a Memorandum of Decision, Foley, J., dated September 8, 2006.) 7

So there is a great deal of long-standing and chronic dysfunction in the families of origin of both of of Makayla's parents.   Raymond and Brandy, who are a couple as of the date of this trial, reside with Raymond's mother Kelly and her boyfriend Brian.   The house is owned by Brian.   He has prior involvement as a parent with DCF. His son was adjudicted as a neglected child.   He and Kelly have been arrested for mutual domestic violence episodes.   Brian has a significant criminal history of eleven arrests, although none have been recent.   An example of the family dysfunction can be gleaned from an arrest report involving Raymond and his mother Kelly on Mar 14, 2010.  (Petitioner's Exhibit I.)

I. Issues Presented

What has DCF done to assist these parents?   What have these parents done to help themselves?   Are these parents unwilling or unable to benefit from services as DCF maintains?   Are they likely to be able to parent this child within a reasonable period of time?

The ground alleged in the petition as to respondents is that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother and father have failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).   The factual determination for this court is whether the parents, or either of them, has achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B), that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render them able to care for Makayla.   “Personal rehabilitation as used in [Section 17a-112] refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [The statute] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ [The statute] requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation [she] has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date [she] can assume a responsible position in her child's life.”  In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674(1999) at 706.

The case initially came to the Department's attention on or about May 6, 2008, following a referral in regard to Brandy exposing the baby to inappropriate care-givers and substance abuse issues.   DCF was aware of Raymond's history as he had been a committed child.   He had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, sexual abuse and criminal involvement.   DCF initiated case management services in the home.

Another referral was made in June regarding Brandy not properly feeding Makayla and that the parents had inadequate and unstable housing.   Between June 11, 2008 and July 23, 2008 the family lived in three different homes.   DCF continued to offer parenting education services for the parents.   They did not commence the services until September 2008.

On June 14, 2008, Raymond was arrested for threatening the maternal grandmother.   On July 7, 2008, when Makayla was three months old, DCF substantiated inappropriate sexual contact by Raymond with an unrelated, four-year-old female.   This was the event for which Raymond was subsequently convicted.   DCF immediately required Brandy to sign service agreements stating that she would feed Makayla only formula and appropriate foods;  that she would not expose Makayla to substance abuse;  that she would ensure Makayla had appropriate care-takers;  and, perhaps most importantly, that Brandy would not leave Makayla unsupervised with Raymond at any time.   Brandy signed similar agreements with DCF on July 23, August 1, September 2, and October 1, 2008.

On October 1, 2008 in a meeting with social workers, Brandy, a parent aid and a Mr. Montford, Raymond disclosed that he “may have” touched the child's vagina when he moved her during the night.   Raymond also admitted to DCF that he used alcohol and marijuana for his anxiety, that he did not like to take the prescribed medications.   DCF arranged for a substance abuse evaluation.

On November 21, 2008, two social workers visited Brandy and Raymond.   The couple and child were then living with Kelly B. and Brian T. The social worker visited and found no crib, no formula, no baby food.   Brandy said she had not kept her appointment with WIC (Women, Infants, and Children's program) to get proper formula.   They found that the pair had been feeding Makayla watered-down plain milk instead of formula.   Raymond said he did not like the smell of formula and it was too expensive.   They did not have any other appropriate food for the infant.   The parents informed the social worker that Makayla slept between them at night.   The parents announced that as of the end of the month they would be homeless.   Most critically, Raymond admitted that he had been caring for Makayla unsupervised for the past month.   Brandy acknowledged this and showed no insight into why it was inappropriate to allow Raymond to be alone with the child.   The social worker testified that she had discussed this issue with Brandy every time a safety plan was signed.   The social worker testified that Brandy always minimized the risk presented by Raymond.   Raymond said the service agreement was “stupid.”

DCF invoked a 96-hour hold and sought an order of temporary custody.   It is important to note at this point, that one of the principal reasons for removal of Makayla was the unsupervised contact between Raymond and his daughter.   The other issues of nutrition and transience could be more easily addressed.   But this issue of child safety was the most alarming.

During the trial, Brandy testified that she knows of Raymond's history of sexually inappropriate behavior with young females, including an allegation of having sex with his younger sister, even before the most recent conviction.8  Brandy testified that she, to this day, does not view Raymond as a risk to Makayla.   She told the psychologist she is confident that Raymond did not molest the child, adding, “and that's how I felt from the beginning.”  (This statement was made after Raymond's conviction.)   Indeed, she and Raymond remain a couple and live in a home firmly established as depraved and dysfunctional.

The parents have no known physical impairments to prevent them from working.   The mother is twenty-two and the father is twenty-three.   Both receive food stamps.   Neither parent has been able to establish independent, self-sufficient income, living accommodations or transportation.   They are still unable to provide a safe and appropriate environment for the child.   There has been no reduction in the parental risk to the safety and well being of Makayla in the past six hundred and thirty-six days (November 21, 2008 to August 20, 2010).

II. Brandy

Prior to the removal of the child DCF arranged for the United Services Parent Aide program to provide parenting education for both Brandy and Raymond.   Those services began in September 2008, and participation ended when Makayla was removed in November 2008, and the parent aide program was unable to locate the parents thereafter.

Transience has plagued the parents before and after removal.   At the time of first DCF involvement the parents were being evicted.   They have moved in with Raymond's mother off and on through the years.   They have had an apartment in Putnam they lost.   They moved in with Brandy's cousin, they left there to live again with Kelly B. Then they went to live with friends.   Brandy relocated to Massachusetts from March 2009, until May 2009.   May until August 2009, Brandy lived with a number of different friends.   Since August, DCF has helped her get into a domestic violence shelter in Willimantic.   She was discharged from that shelter for letting Raymond know the address.   She lived with friends and relatives then went to a domestic violence shelter in Danielson.   She left that and went to an Access agency shelter.   She thereafter hooked back up with Raymond and moved back in with his mother and Kelly's boyfriend where she remains today.

It is important to know that Brandy was aware that if she stayed in the domestic violence shelter as DCF wanted, she would have been placed on a list for appropriate and suitable individual housing.   Brandy left the shelter, ostensibly to be with Raymond again.   During the past two years Brandy reports that she has had three miscarriages.   Raymond is her only known romantic interest.   She told the psychologist that she had miscarriages in the summer of 2009, in December 2009, and most recently in May 2010.

Brandy told the psychologist, Stephen Humphrey (Petitioner's Exhibit F) that on Father's Day, 2009, she and Raymond got into an argument which resulted in a physical altercation.   Raymond called her a demeaning profanity, she felt like hitting him but he swung first and hit her in the face.   She filed a complaint with the police.  (See Petitioner's Exhibit H.) She said the police did not serve the warrant for six months.   She ended up going to a domestic violence shelter and later she got back together with Raymond.   DCF offered her a program for domestic violence counseling through the shelter but Brandy left the shelter in August 2009, before completing the course and before she was eligible for alternate housing.

DCF offered Brandy individual counseling to address her mental health issues.   She was discharged from individual counseling in March 2010, for having missed too many sessions.   Brandy was provided with other referrals however none was pursued.   Intake appointments were scheduled for May 25, 2010 and June 1, 2010.   Brandy failed to attend either appointment.   She has told the psychologist that she does not need therapy.

DCF has offered medication management services to her for her major depressive disorder.   She currently receives medication from her gynecologist, Dr. Yeager and from her primary care physician at Generations, Dr. Shafts.   She denies any need for therapy to address this disorder.   She told the psychologist the only reason to go to therapy was to comply with DCF's recommendations.   She did not believe there was anything she needed to change.   Further,” [D]espite (Raymond's) physical assault of her, his history of marijuana use, transience, and arrest and incarceration (not to mention allegations of sexual abuse she professes to disbelieve) she contended the only thing (Raymond) needed to change was his drug habit.”(Exhibit F page 22.)

It is clear from her own statements and conduct that Brandy is unwilling or unable to benefit from services and that the level of rehabilitation she has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child's life.

III. Raymond

The court has previously addressed Raymond's very problematic childhood, the several allegations of sexual misconduct with children and his recent convictions.   He self-reports to a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression.   Raymond was referred to therapy as a youth in DCF care.   He has been proscribed Zoloft and Zyprexia but disdains prescription medication in favor of marijuana and alcohol.   He does not see any need for services for him at this time.

Raymond did attend a Community Prevention and Addiction Services program in August 2009.   He began individual counseling with Steve Eldridge in August 2009 but was discharged in September for failure to contact his counselor.   Raymond was offered three potential program providers for parenting education but he did not contact any of them.   He was offered domestic violence and individual therapy through United Services but did not contact them.   The terms of his present probation prevent him from any contact with minor children.   He and Brandy remain transient and without known legal income.

Raymond was evaluated by Dr. Humphrey.   The following exchanges reveal the character of Makayla's father.

Mr. B's childhood conduct problems and antisocial tendencies appear to have developed into a significant problem with authority (including criminal behavior) in adulthood.   He said he has had “crazy trouble with the law,” noting he was arrested just four weeks before this interview after a scuffle with a young man who punched his brother in the face.   He denied he was an aggressor in that situation, noting that the “Danielson cops are assholes.”

Mr. B tended to offer caustic, inflammatory statements, such as “DCF doesn't think (reunification) is a good idea but I think they're a crock of shit, “my probation officer tells me not to drink but phttt ․ Who the hell is he?”   He said he reacted to his probation officer's warning about talking to a woman with her child present by saying, “Bullshit, motherfucker ․ I'm talking to a full-grown adult and you're going to mess with me.”   He referred to his probation officer as a “dirtbag.”

In my opinion, Mr. B's history of childhood conduct problems, his antisocial attitudes, his history of self-injury (suggesting impairment in attachment relationships), his impulsivity, his history of interpersonal aggression, and his unrestrained comments about being able to kill someone if necessary support a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality disorder.  (Exhibit F p. 23.)

The court finds that Raymond is unwilling or unable to benefit from services.   Further, the ground alleged in the petition as to respondent father is that the child was found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the father has failed to achieve such degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable period of time, considering the age and the needs of the child, he could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.  C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(3)(B)(i).   The factual determination for this court is whether the father has achieved rehabilitation as contemplated under the statute, that is, rehabilitation sufficient to render him able to care for Makayla.   The court finds that he has failed to rehabilitate and possible rehabilitation is not likely to occur within a reasonable time.

IV. Statutory Findings

During the dispositional phase, the trial court must determine whether termination is in the best interests of the child.  In re Quanitra M, 60 Conn.App. 96, 103 (2000).  “In arriving at that decision, the court is mandated to consider and make written findings regarding seven factors delineated in General Statutes [17a-112(k) ].”  In re Jonathon G., 63 Conn.App. 516, 528 (2001) (quoting In re Denzel A., 53 Conn.App. 827, 833 (1999)).   The seven factors “serve simply as guidelines to the court and are not statutory prerequisites that need to be proven before termination can be ordered.”  In re Quanitra M, supra. at 104.  “There is no requirement that each factor be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”In re Janazia S., 112 Conn.App. 69, 98, 961, A.2d 1036 (2009).   The court considers each of them in determining whether to terminate parental rights under this section.

1. TIMELINESS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF SERVICES § 17a-112(k)(l) Multiple timely and appropriate services were offered to both parents.   Those services included, but are not limited to:  treatment and permanency plans;  case management services;  and administrative case reviews;  transportation services for visitation supervised by DCF personnel, or by therapeutic visitation programs;  and most urgently, repeated referrals for personal therapy.

2. REUNIFICATION EFFORTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW § 17a-112(k)(2)

DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, through the provision of timely reunification services.   Reunification was not a feasible plan unless and until the parents improved their parenting skills, stabilized their home life, became reliably self-sufficient and recognized and addressed the problems of Raymond's sexual deviance.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS § 17a-112(k)(3) Previously addressed relative to failure to attend regular counseling, obtaining lawful income, obtain safe and appropriate housing and improving parenting skills.

4. THE CHILD'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL TIES § 17a-112(k)(4) Makayla has been with the foster parents for nearly two years.   She is closely bonded with them, views them as her parents and looks to them for support and comfort.   They are eager to adopt Makayla if that possibility presents.

As of May 2010, the biological parents announced that they are a couple and wished to combine their visitation into one joint visit per week.   Previously they had separate visits.   The visits are consistently attended.   Makayla appears comfortable with each parent.   The social worker reports that the visits often end early due to the parents having other scheduled appointments or simply being ready to end the visit early.

5. AGE OF THE CHILD § 17a-112(k)(5) Makayla was born on April 3, 2008.   She is two years and five months of age.   She has been in care for approximately 636 days.

6. PARENT'S EFFORT TO ADJUST CIRCUMSTANCES § 17a-112(k)(6)This topic has been previously addressed.   To be clear, both parents demonstrated poor parenting skills, they had a distrust of authority, they both were in substantial denial about their own problems and had no insight into the child protection issues presented.   None of these problems were corrected in the nearly two years of DCF involvement.

7. EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS PREVENTED FROM MAINTAINING A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN § 17a-112(k)(7) No unreasonable conduct by the child protection agency, foster parents or third parties prevented the parents from maintaining, at least a visiting relationship with Makayla, nor did the economic circumstances of the parents interfere with such relationship.

V. Best Interest Determination

With respect to the best interests of the child contemplated by C.G.S. § 17a-112(j)(2), by clear and convincing evidence, and based upon all of the foregoing, the court finds that termination of the parental rights of Brandy B. and Raymond B. to Makayla is in the best interest of the child.   Permanency, consistency and stability are crucial for all children.   The child is now in a foster home where she is very well cared for by foster parents who are fully committed to her.

VI. Orders

After due consideration of the child's sense of time, her need for a secure and permanent environment and the totality of circumstances;  and having considered all the statutory criteria and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist for termination of parental rights;  and having concluded that the termination of the parental rights at issue will be in the child's best interests, the court issues the following orders.   That the parental rights of both parents are hereby terminated as to the child Makayla B. The Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families is hereby appointed the statutory parent for the child for the purpose of securing an adoptive family or other permanent placement for her.   That a case plan shall be submitted within 30 days of this judgment, and that such further reports shall be timely presented to the court, as required by law.   That primary consideration for adoption of Makayla shall be offered to the current foster parents.

The Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of this child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 81 Columbia Ave., Willimantic 06226 of the date when said adoption is finalized.

Judgment may enter accordingly.

It is so ordered this 23rd day of August 2010

Foley, Sr. J. # 256

FOOTNOTES

2.  FN2. There are discrepancies in the dates she lived with her paternal grandmother.   In Exhibit F., she told the psychologist she lived with grandmother from age four or five until she was twelve.   Her report of the foster care experience is differently reported as well.

3.  FN3. Note that Brandy B. is the mother in the present case and is not related to Brandy H.B. who is a nine-year daughter of Kelly B. Kelly's rights were terminated to that child.

4.  FN4. These episodes of sexual deviance preceded Raymond's recent conviction for risk of injury on February 5, 2010.

5.  FN5. Seroquel is an anti-psychotic drug used to treat schizophrenia.   Trazadone is an antidepressant.   Lithium is used to treat manic stage bipolar disorder.  (Drugs.com.)

6.  FN6. A neglect petition had been filed in February 2006.   The children were on Protective Supervision.   On July 17, 2006, the DCF treatment worker, knowing that Allan was living with Kelly and the girls, shockingly recommended that Protective Supervision end.   It did.  (Respondent's Exhibit 2.)

7.  FN7. On May 21, 2009, this court terminated her rights to Brandy, her seventh child to have the parental rights severed.   Raymond is the only one of Kelly's children whose parental rights have not been terminated.

8.  FN8. Petitioner's Exhibit M page 5, notes an allegation of sexual abuse of a ten-year-old female child by Raymond.   There was insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Foley, Francis J., S.J.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More